Am 03.02.2013 23:49, schrieb Namespace:
> I will pause the development / completion of Dgame and generally my work with D. If D should eventually solve the const& problem (and I underline the 'if'), that would be one reason to turn back.

Wow, const& is your biggest concern? I could list way more important reasons to stop developing D than "const&" which can be easily worked around.

On Monday, 4 February 2013 at 14:12:58 UTC, David wrote:
> Am 03.02.2013 23:49, schrieb Namespace:
>> I will pause the development / completion of Dgame and generally my work
>> with D. If D should eventually solve the const& problem (and I underline
>> the 'if'), that would be one reason to turn back.
>
> Wow, const& is your biggest concern? I could list way more important
> reasons to stop developing D than "const&" which can be easily worked
> around.

Yes, for me that's the biggest concern.
My fellow students and I used D for simulations and such things (That's the main reason I started the creation of Dgame) and that's why we often use structs instead of classes. But without something similar as const&, structs are unhandy. So we went back to C++ where we have what we need/want. And since C++11 it isn't so much different than using D.
But I still hope, that D will solve the const& problem. It's about time.

On Monday, 4 February 2013 at 17:12:32 UTC, Namespace wrote:
> Yes, for me that's the biggest concern.
> My fellow students and I used D for simulations and such things (That's the main reason I started the creation of Dgame) and that's why we often use structs instead of classes. But without something similar as const&, structs are unhandy. So we went

Please someone explain me, what are the big differences beetween using const &struct and const (ref)class??? What aspect of using stucts vs classes is so strong??? The above reasoning makes no sense for me, sorry.

> The above reasoning makes no sense for me, sorry.

No worries, it makes no sense for me either, also to a few guys on IRC who saw this

On Monday, 4 February 2013 at 17:46:03 UTC, David wrote:
>> The above reasoning makes no sense for me, sorry.
>
> No worries, it makes no sense for me either, also to a few guys on IRC
> who saw this

For non native English people like me it's hard to explain. So don't think about it. ;)
I had no plans to explain myself (also see no reason why I should do this). I only wanted to write my decision in my thread.

On 2013-02-04 19:12, Namespace wrote:
> I had no plans to explain myself (also see no reason why I should do this). I
> only wanted to write my decision in my thread.

Hope you will pick Dgame up again. And until then enjoy C++,
which "since C++11 it isn't so much different than using D".
(You were joking, right?)

On Monday, 4 February 2013 at 18:26:27 UTC, FG wrote:
> On 2013-02-04 19:12, Namespace wrote:
>> I had no plans to explain myself (also see no reason why I should do this). I
>> only wanted to write my decision in my thread.
>
> Hope you will pick Dgame up again.
I also.

> And until then enjoy C++,
> which "since C++11 it isn't so much different than using D".
> (You were joking, right?)
A bit. ;)

Dgame is back, completely overhauled and offers many new features.
In addition, the website has been completely redesigned.
The documentation is now fully applicable and easy to navigate. And there are now 14 new detailed tutorials to use Dgame.
Have fun but note that Dgame is still in a beta stage.

Official Website: http://dgame-dev.de/